Cost-Effectiveness Considerations in Transcatheter Management of Valvular Heart Disease

Cost analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: analysis from a single Japanese center

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the prognosis of intermediate- or high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, particularly among older adults. However, in possible candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), the implantation of expensive prostheses may be questionable in an era when healthcare costs are becoming a major concern. In this retrospective analysis of a single Japanese center, we focused on patients aged over 80 years; the objectives of this study were: (1) to compare TAVR and SAVR in terms of total hospitalization costs and (2) to describe the itemized cost of TAVR and SAVR to identify patients aged over 80 years in whom TAVR or SAVR would be cost-effective. A total of 146 patients aged over 80 years who underwent TAVR or SAVR for severe aortic stenosis were included. These patients were divided into a high-risk group (Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] mortality score > 8%; 36: TAVR and 12: SAVR) with 48 patients and a non-high-risk group (STS mortality score < 8%; 45: TAVR and 53 SAVR) with 98 patients. No 30-day mortality was observed in either group. In both groups, postoperative intensive care unit stay and hospital stay were longer with SAVR than with TAVR. In the non-high-risk group, the total cost was comparable for TAVR and SAVR; however, in the high-risk group, the total cost was significantly higher with SAVR than that with TAVR. A breakdown analysis of the total cost in the high-risk group showed both pre- and postoperative costs to be significantly higher with SAVR than with TAVR; however, operative costs were higher with TAVR. Up to 3 years, the overall survival in both groups did not significantly differ between TAVR and SAVR. Our findings suggest that from the perspective of total medical costs, TAVR is more suitable than SAVR for high-risk older adults.

Cost and contribution margin of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost of and payments for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a novel and expensive technology, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

Medicare claims provided hospital charges, payments, and outcomes between January and December 2012. Hospital costs and charges were estimated using hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Costs and payments were examined in propensity score- matched TAVR and SAVR patients.

RESULTS

Medicare spent $215,770,200 nationally on 4083 patients who underwent TAVR in 2012. Hospital costs were higher for TAVR patients (median, $50,200; interquartile range [IQR], $39,800-$64,300) than for propensity-matched SAVR patients ($45,500; IQR, $34,500-$63,300; P < .01), owing largely to higher estimated medical supply costs, including the implanted valve prosthesis. Postprocedure hospital length of stay (LOS) length was shorter for TAVR patients (median, 5 days [IQR, 4-8 days] vs 7 days [IQR, 5-9 days]; P < .01), as was total intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (median, 2 days [IQR, 0-5 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 1-6 days]; P < .01). Medicare payments were lower for TAVR hospitalizations (median, $49,500; IQR, $36,900-$64,600) than for SAVR (median, $50,400; IQR, $37,400-$65,800; P < .01). The median of the differences between payments and costs (contribution margin) was -$3380 for TAVR hospitalizations and $2390 for SAVR hospitalizations (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR accounted for $215 million in Medicare payments in its first year of clinical use. Among SAVR Medicare patients at a similar risk level, TAVR was associated with higher hospital costs despite shorter ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Overall and/or medical device cost reductions are needed for TAVR to have a net neutral financial impact on hospitals.

Paravalvular Regurgitation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparing Transthoracic versus Transesophageal Echocardiographic Guidance

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in cardiac catheterization laboratories using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) to guide valve deployment. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) remains a concern.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 454 consecutive patients (mean age, 82 ± 8; 58% male) who underwent transfemoral TAVR at Emory Healthcare from 2007 to 2014. Two hundred thirty-four patients underwent TAVR in the cardiac catheterization laboratory with TTE guidance (TTE-TAVR; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 10%), while 220 patients underwent the procedure in the hybrid operating room with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance (TEE-TAVR; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 11%). All patients received an Edwards valve (SAPIEN 55%, SAPIEN-XT 45%). Clinical and procedural characteristics, echocardiographic parameters, and incidence of PVR were compared.

RESULTS

The incidence of at least mild PVR at discharge was comparable between TTE-TAVR and TEE-TAVR (33% vs 38%, respectively; P = .326) and did not differ when stratified by valve type. However, in the TTE-TAVR group, there was a higher incidence of second valve implantation (7% vs 2%; P = .026) and postdilation (38% vs 17%; P < .001) during the procedure. Although not independently associated with PVR at discharge (odds ratio = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.79), TTE-TAVR was associated with PVR-related events: the combined outcome of mild PVR at discharge, intraprocedural postdilation, and second valve insertion (odds ratio = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.46). There were no significant differences in PVR at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TTE-TAVR in a high-risk group of patients was associated with increased incidence of intraprocedure PVR-related events, although it was not associated with higher rates of PVR at follow-up. Multicenter randomized trials are required to confirm the cost-effectiveness and safety of TTE-TAVR.

Drivers of healthcare costs associated with the episode of care for surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Objective

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is generally more expensive than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) due to the high cost of the device. Our objective was to understand the patient and procedural drivers of cumulative healthcare costs during the index hospitalisation for these procedures.

Design

All patients undergoing TAVI, isolated SAVR or combined SAVR+coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada were identified during the fiscal year 2012–2013. Data were obtained from a prospective registry. Cumulative healthcare costs during the episode of care were determined using microcosting. To identify drivers of healthcare costs, multivariable hierarchical generalised linear models with a logarithmic link and γ distribution were developed for TAVI, SAVR and SAVR+CABG separately.

Results

Our cohort consisted of 1310 patients with aortic stenosis, of whom 585 underwent isolated SAVR, 518 had SAVR+CABG and 207 underwent TAVI. The median costs for the index hospitalisation for isolated SAVR were $21 811 (IQR $18 148–$30 498), while those for SAVR+CABG were $27 256 (IQR $21 741–$39 000), compared with $42 742 (IQR $37 295–$56 196) for TAVI. For SAVR, the major patient-level drivers of costs were age >75 years, renal dysfunction and active endocarditis. For TAVI, chronic lung disease was a major patient-level driver. Procedural drivers of cost for TAVI included a non-transfemoral approach. A prolonged intensive care unit stay was associated with increased costs for all procedures.

Conclusions

We found wide variation in healthcare costs for SAVR compared with TAVI, with different patient-level drivers as well as potentially modifiable procedural factors. These highlight areas of further study to optimise healthcare delivery.

Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement

PURPOSE

Standard gamble (SG) is the preferred method of assessing preferences in situations with uncertainty and risk, which makes it relevant to patients considered for aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present study assesses SG preferences in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

All patients >18 years old with severe AS referred for AVR to our institution were invited to enroll in the study. The SG was administered by a clinical research nurse. The SF-36, EQ-5D 3L, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and AS symptoms were administered by self-completed questionnaire. We hypothesized that SG utilities would have low-to-moderate correlations with physical and mental aspects of health based on our pathophysiological understanding of severe AS. No correlations were expected with echocardiographic measures of the aortic valve.

RESULTS

The response rate for SG was 98 %. SG moderately correlated with physical aspects of SF-36 (PCS, role-physical, vitality), health transition, AS symptoms, and EQ-VAS (ρ S = 0.31-0.39, p < 0.001) and had low correlation with mental aspects of SF-36 and EQ-5D (ρ S = 0.17-0.28, p < 0.001). No correlation was found between SG and HADS, echocardiographic measures, age, gender, or education level (ρ S = 0.01-0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

SG is an acceptable and feasible method of assessing preferences in patients with severe AS that has evidence for validity. The inclusion of uncertainty lends the SG face validity in this population as a direct approach to assessing preferences and basis for QALY calculations.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter versus surgical management of structural heart disease

Transcatheter management of valvular and structural heart disease is the most growing aspect of interventional cardiology. While the early experience was limited to patients who were not candidate for surgery, the continuous improvement in the efficacy and safety expanded its use to different degree depending on the procedure and the disease involved. The cost of these procedures is a major concern for health care in developed world. Cost-effectiveness of these transcatheter structural procedures varies depending on the procedure itself, the burden of the underlying disease, the feasibility and cost of both the Transcatheter and surgical procedures. In this review, we turn now to a specific discussion of the medical economics of percutaneous valvular and structural interventions.

Costs and in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in commercial cases using a propensity score matched model

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital cost and outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVI is an effective treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at high risk for traditional SAVR. Several studies using trial data or outside United States registry data have addressed TAVI cost issues, although there is a paucity of cost data involving commercial cases in the United States. Using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample files, a propensity score-matched analysis of all commercial TAVI and SAVR cases performed in 2011 was conducted. Overall hospital cost and length of stay, as well as procedural complications, were compared between the 2 matched cohorts: 595 TAVI patients were matched to 1,785 SAVR patients in a 1:3 ratio. There was no difference in mean ($181,912 vs $196,298) or median ($152,993 vs $155,974) hospital cost between TAVI and SAVR (p = 0.60). The TAVI group had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay than the SAVR group (mean 9.76 vs 12.01 days, p <0.001). There was no difference in postprocedural in-hospital death or stroke, but TAVI patients were more likely to have bleeding complications, to have vascular complications, and to require pacemakers. In conclusion, when analyzing in-hospital cost of commercial TAVI and SAVR cases using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data set, TAVI is an economically satisfactory alternative to SAVR and results in an approximately 2-day shorter length of stay during the index hospitalization.